FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Matson v Buckingham [2022] FCA 777
File number: QUD 198 of 2022 Judgment of: LOGAN J Date of judgment: 21 June 2022 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for review the exercise of power by a Registrar – where Registrar refused to accept an originating application on the basis that it constituted an abuse of process – where originating application sought to agitate a justiciable controversy not determined in other proceedings – Registrar’s decision set aside
EXTRADITION – bail – application for bail by person subject to extradition under the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) – where application made to facilitate preparation for proceedings in Federal Court and High Court – where applicant already has sufficient access to facilities to prepare case – where given stage of proceedings under the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) there is an obvious risk of non-attendance – bail refused
Legislation: Constitution s 75(v)
Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) s 53
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39B
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 23, 35A
Cases cited: Edwards v Santos Ltd (2011) 242 CLR 421
Division: General Division Registry: Queensland National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Number of paragraphs: 15 Date of hearing: 21 June 2022 Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant appeared in person Counsel for the Respondent: The respondent filed a submitting notice, save as to costs Counsel for the Interested Person: Mr M McKechnie Solicitor for the Interested Person: Australian Government Solicitor ORDERS
QUD 198 of 2022 BETWEEN: BARON PHILLIP MATSON
Applicant
AND: MC BUCKINGHAM, JUDICIAL REGISTRAR, FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Respondent
ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Interested Person
ORDER MADE BY:
LOGAN J
DATE OF ORDER:
21 JUNE 2022
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The decision of a Registrar dated 24 May 2022 to reject documents lodged with the Registry on 19 May 2022, in so far as it as it relates to the filing of an application for extension of time forming part of annexure BPM-3 to the affidavit of Baron Phillip Matson, sworn 31 May 2022 and the draft amended originating application, forming part of annexure BPM-1 to that affidavit, be set aside.
2.The application for extension of time and draft originating application be accepted for filing forthwith.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(REVISED FROM TRANSCRIPT)LOGAN J:
Mr Baron Philip Matson (Mr Matson) is presently facing the prospect of imminent surrender to the United States of America pursuant to a request made of Australia by that country under the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) (Extradition Act). That extradition request became the subject of a decision by the then acting Attorney-General in 2019 that Mr Matson be surrendered to the United States.
The procedural history of litigation in this Court concerning that surrender decision is to be found in a judgment of Rangiah J dismissing…
Continue reading Matson v Buckingham
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Matson v Buckingham [2022] FCA 777
- Case
- [2022] FCA 777
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether the Registrar had the authority to refuse to accept an originating application on the grounds of abuse of process, and whether the refusal was justified in the circumstances. The court held that the Registrar did have the authority to refuse to accept an originating application on the grounds of abuse of process, but that the refusal was not justified in this case. The court found that the applicant had not acted in a way that would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, and that the application did not seek to re-litigate a matter that had already been determined.
The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the relevant legal principles and authorities. The court held that the Registrar's decision to refuse to accept the originating application was an exercise of discretion, and that the court should intervene only if the decision was plainly wrong or unjust. The court found that the Registrar had not considered all of the relevant factors in making his decision, and that the decision was therefore plainly wrong.
The court set aside the Registrar's decision and ordered that the application for extension of time and draft originating application be accepted for filing forthwith. The court also noted that the applicant had already been granted bail in the criminal proceedings related to the extradition matter, and that there was an obvious risk of non-attendance at the Federal Court and High Court proceedings. The court therefore refused the application for bail in those proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The decision of a Registrar dated 24 May 2022 to reject documents lodged with the Registry on 19 May 2022, in so far as it as it relates to the filing of an application for extension of time forming part of annexure BPM-3 to the affidavit of Baron Phillip Matson, sworn 31 May 2022 and the draft amended originating application, forming part of annexure BPM-1 to that affidavit, be set aside.
2. The application for extension of time and draft originating application be accepted for filing forthwith.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.